The President does too much. Let's cut it into 2.

[Bush did 311]

Because the US is such a powerful country with so much influence in the world, the president is in charge of such a broad range of things. It doesn't give citizens the ability to fine-tune US policy on each issue, so they are usually dissatisfied.

I think it would be interesting to split the presidency into 2 positions that are elected separately - a President and a Chancellor. One would set a domestic agenda and be in charge of running the country. The other would take over foreign matters, and the cabinet positions would be split accordingly under each.

Could even do 3 splits, like having a separate PM as well. If one of them does a lousy job we can fire them without giving the country a full lobotomy on the things that are still going well.

Thoughts?

[President Johnson]

That wouldn't work in practice. One man or one woman has to call the shots. That's also why I regard the semi-presidential system as questionable. Presidential or parliamentary systems are superior.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I've had the thought more in regards to Congress than I have the President. Have a Congress that only does finances. Have a Congress that only does international relations, etc. Would get rid of some of the single-issue grifters. Tells voters "my focus for the next 2 years will be on abortion!" Then get assigned to the Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committees. If you have a Congress solely focused on say international affairs, that's all you're running on and voting on. Works better in theory than practice admittedly when a lot of how interest groups operate is making sure people they don't like just never get elected to anything, regardless of whether they are affected by the issue or not.

[Blue3]

Because the US is such a powerful country with so much influence in the world, the president is in charge of such a broad range of things. It doesn't give citizens the ability to fine-tune US policy on each issue, so they are usually dissatisfied.

I think it would be interesting to split the presidency into 2 positions that are elected separately - a President and a Chancellor. One would set a domestic agenda and be in charge of running the country. The other would take over foreign matters, and the cabinet positions would be split accordingly under each.

Could even do 3 splits, like having a separate PM as well. If one of them does a lousy job we can fire them without giving the country a full lobotomy on the things that are still going well.

Thoughts?

It wouldn’t work… there’s too much gray area and overlap.

And constitutional originalists would say governors (and somewhat Congress) are for domestic policy, already.

This would require a huge constitutional amendment, and there are less radical but more effective constitutional amendments that should come first.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It's a bad idea.  Our Constitution designed a system of checks and balances, but the Executive Branch is designed to be led by one person.

[Frodo]

I am not sure following the example of the early Roman Republic and forming the American equivalent of dual consuls is such a great idea.  

[Obama24]

Because the US is such a powerful country with so much influence in the world, the president is in charge of such a broad range of things. It doesn't give citizens the ability to fine-tune US policy on each issue, so they are usually dissatisfied.

I think it would be interesting to split the presidency into 2 positions that are elected separately - a President and a Chancellor. One would set a domestic agenda and be in charge of running the country. The other would take over foreign matters, and the cabinet positions would be split accordingly under each.

Could even do 3 splits, like having a separate PM as well. If one of them does a lousy job we can fire them without giving the country a full lobotomy on the things that are still going well.

Thoughts?

I like the idea of something like this. What you could do, instead of creating a bunch of new institutions per se, is change the role of the VP to handle foreign policy, the President remains head of state, and perhaps a PM type figure elected by Congress from a selection voted on by the people, handles domestic policy and is head of government.

[Obama24]

It's a bad idea.  Our Constitution designed a system of checks and balances, but the Executive Branch is designed to be led by one person.

It's become way too powerful. The President today has more political power over the government than George III could've dreamt of having.

[Frodo]

It's a bad idea.  Our Constitution designed a system of checks and balances, but the Executive Branch is designed to be led by one person.

It's become way too powerful. The President today has more political power over the government than George III could've dreamt of having.

Which is why I support changing our form of government from a presidential democracy to a parliamentary democracy.  But that will require a constitutional convention precipitated by a Glorious Revolution-level severity constitutional crisis.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Several countries have multiple heads of state. Probably Switzerland is the only one really worth looking at.

Andorra 2 (no real power)
Bosnia 3
San Marino 2
Switzerland 7
Sudan 13 (probably supposed to be temporary)